Absoflaminglutely. Ever notice that all the leadership and spokesmen of the RTLers are males?

Somebody please explain to me how males unrelated to the woman in question have any entitlement to so much as a public opinion about how she manages her reproductive tract. ?

When the day arrives that males can become pregnant, then and only then will they be entitled to a vocal public opinion--not to mention a legislative one--on surgically-mitigated pregnancy.

Simple...many of us do not practice identity politics or morality where validity of judgement is tied solely to group membership.

If we wanted to play your way, and did so *conistently*, we'd notably conclude that:

women should have no say in any law concerning men, since they cannot and will never be men

whites should have no say in any law concerning blacks, since they cannot and will never be blacks

asians should have no say in any law concerning whites, since they cannot and will never be whites

and so on and so forth.

Identity politics is ideal if you are dividing people into groups with the goal of agitating for political power based in group identity. Unfortunately, it simultaneously invalidates itself if applied consistently.

There is nothing race, sex, color or personal characteristic based which results in invalidating opposition to murder. Apparently, for some, there are reasons based in these things which results in supporting it.

A woman can manage what is hers, her reproductive tract, without moral impact on others..... so long as it doesn't involve killing someone else. How so many finely honed minds, expert in the intracies of the morass of identity politics and moral relativism can't grasp this one extremely basic idea puts a fine point on the intentional blind spot...in order to clearly argue for abortion, they must deny the humanity of that which they support the slaughter of.

To me its very simple . Unless the mother is in medical danger , or the fetus is proved to be horribly defective (no brain , just a brainstem , and other mutations not compatible with life) , and if left to its persent course(full term delivery) will result in a normal healthy birth , and someone goes in there and kills it , then its murder . Would it have become a child if left to develop in the womb as nature intended ? And someone went after it with medical instruments and ended that growing ? suger coat it any way you can , but to me its still MURDER

So it's the role of government to care for the babies before they are born, but not after. Interesting interpretation.

It is governments role to fill potholes and prevent individuals from being victims of violent crime. Many consider being aborted to be a violent act against a person and that such an act should be a crime.
To try to extend that tenant to assuring other outcomes for that person either before or after they are born misses the point and is a different argument. Of course the pro abortion supporters like to try to let the one argument hitch a free ride on the other.

Um, so the government should force a mother to carry a fetus to term, plop it on the floor, and then to hell with what happens from there on? When the mother might have a very good idea--presumably better than the government's--of what the fetus' future will look like once it's hit the floor? Such as not being able to afford to feed or medicate it?

Some of these notions would sprain my eyesockets rolling them, if I let it get that far. Especially considering they all come from males, who will never face the issue themselves and thus are not (IMO) entitled to an opinion AT ALL.